Theoretical boundaries

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 120216


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at s...> 
wrote:

> I always struggle with this "complaint" [for lack of a better term, 
> Kneasy] about some of the posters' methods/interests at HPfGU.  I am 
> one of those who likely drives Kneasy to eye-rolling with my interest 
> in social issues, emotional response, and etc.  
> 
> But, Kneasy, the way I see it, we're working towards the SAME THING.  
> You went on, above, to talk about being interested in the *whys* of 
> things -- *why* Snape is nasty, *why* the Dursleys act as they do, 
> *why* DD trusts Snape.  These are some of the very things I'm most 
> fascinated by as well.  In fact, getting at a *why* for many people 
> involves looking at backgrounds, histories, significant events & 
> relationships in characters' lifetimes, and, yes, emotions and the 
> like.  
> 
> You're looking for whys and for "what will be"s based upon those 
> whys, are you not?  When someone else talks about Tom Riddle's orphan 
> upbringing or the Dursleys' treatment of Harry, and possible impact 
> or character reactions to those histories, how is that different?  I 
> think many of today's posters are looking for the whys and wherefores 
> of the story, too.  Whether looking for FACTS of a situation or of 
> characters in a situation, or attempting to INTERPRET those facts, 
> we're still all going towards motivation, aren't we? 
> 
> Or am I misunderstanding the distinction between your preference and 
> the other?  Perhaps you're talking about people who merely 
> argue "for" or "against" a character based upon RW parallels, as 
> opposed to advancing any sort of theory of the character's 
> motivations or likely future actions?
> 
>

Kneasy:
Likes and  dislikes are part and parcel of membership and largely
irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, however badly.
Personally I hate SHIPs, anything fluffy and pop psychology. Others
love 'em. 

Where I start to get restive is when, for example a thread starts and
suddenly there's a load of posts castigating the Dursleys. Sure, they're
pompous, opinionated, ultra-conventional and don't treat Harry well.
For some that seems  to be more than enough - they're nasty, possibly
evil and DD should have known better than to leave Harry in their not 
so tender care. Full stop. Others may chime in and say it's not so bad
really, Harry is sane and healthy, if maybe under-fed. Rarely do
either camp dig deeper or consider the situation from the Dursleys
point of view. 

But so far as I'm concerned the Dursleys POV could be important to
the overall story - just possibly. 
Why do they treat Harry the way they do?
Is there, in their own eyes at least, some sort of twisted justification?
There could be. What if it's not hate but fear? Fear of anything
magical. What if they fear magic as much as say, the wizard in
the street fears Voldy? How would you expect them to  react with
a magical cuckoo  thrust into their nest? Paranoia and denial, I'd
think, just as they do now - especially as there's absolutely *nobody* 
they can talk to, nobody they can turn to. And if it turns out that 
Petunia's parents were casualties in the first Voldy unpleasantness 
then it'd be even more understandable.

Certainly we now know that DD was in communication with Petunia 
*before* GH. This would indicate that maybe she's had contacts with
the WW other than through her sister. So what happened? And did it
help form her attitudes? And through her Vernon's? 
Just the sort of thing I like to wonder about.

See, when I read the books I don't see them as presented as evil,
I read them as held up to ridicule, a joke presentation of pompous
conformity. As slight support I'd add that's the way they're shown
in the films too. JKR has said that the character she dislikes most
is Vernon, but she's never said why. Is it because of his reaction to
Harry, or is it bigger, that he's the embodiment of unthinking middle-
class ignorance? Guess which I'd go for?

   
 
> 
> SSSusan:
> And with this I totally agree.  The early theories & FPs set the 
> stage, set the vernacular of this place.  I need to go back and 
> relish more of them than I have. 
> 

Kneasy:
Too true.
One thing is notably different these days.
It seemed much more light-hearted, even frivolous.
More posters seem to take themselves much more seriously than
they did back then. Not an improvement IMO. Too much like Vernon.